# Thomas v. Rutledge

> West Virginia Supreme Court · July 14, 1981 · 167 W. Va. 487

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9575954

## Case

- **Full name:** Kunjamma Thomas v. Phyllis J. Rutledge, Clerk of the Circuit Court of Kanawha County, and the Board of Review, West Virginia Department of Employment Security
- **Court:** West Virginia Supreme Court
- **Decided:** July 14, 1981
- **Citations:** 167 W. Va. 487; 280 S.E.2d 123
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Neely
- **Judges:** Neely
- **Cited by:** 11 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9575954

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that "[i]n the area of . . . economics benefits legislation . . . a classification which is not inherently suspect will satisfy the guarantee of equal protection of the laws if it bears some rational relation to the legitimate state purpose of the act"
- stating that "[i]n the area of ... economics benefits legislation ... a classification which is not inherently suspect will satisfy the guarantee of equal protection of the *58 laws if it bears some rational relation to the legitimate state purpose of the act”

## Opinion text

Neely, Justice
dissenting:
I dissent on the grounds that statutory entitlements are uniformly arbitrary. Why can we all retire with full benefits at 65 but not at 64? Why is a person who voluntarily quits work disqualified for seven weeks rather than six or eight? These issues are political and must be addressed by the political and not the judicial process.
I am no more enamored of the legislative conclusion that “domestic quits” disqualify a beneficiary until he or she returns to full-time work than the majority. However, in 19721 left the West Virginia Legislature to become a judge. *501 When I did that I gave up the legislating business for the judging business. There is no political conclusion of a legislature which is beyond judicial repeal by appeal to an equal protection argument.
Certainly a legislature can so discriminate against the politically powerless and in favor of the politically powerful in the construction of a benefits scheme as to legitimately call the legislation into question under traditional due process rules. This, however, is very far from such a case. Can we say that married women as a class constitute an insular minority devoid of political power? Can we say that those who quit voluntarily and are, therefore, disqualified for only seven weeks constitute a powerful political lobby distinct and apart from the insular minority of domestic quitters? Certainly not! In an inherently arbitrary scheme no one facet of the scheme is necessarily more arbitrary than another. Thus this case is an improper occasion for the judiciary to intervene in the active political process.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9575954. Public record. Not legal advice.